On other posts GM and others have discussed the inherit evils and dangers of a Theocracy and their rejection of democracy; obviously Islamic countries were used as an example. Yet I think Israel too is facing a crossroad;

The Palestinian population is growing by leaps and bounds; "Olmert was absolutely clear; They (Palestinians) will demand the vote - Israel will have to choose between granting them their demand and ceasing to be a Jewish State or rejecting it and ceasing to be a democracy."

Actually, I thought you did quite well at the drumming (the whole day went well); and while your replacement was much more attractive your technique stood up. And yes I understand you were busy, that is why I didn't introduce myself. I was a spectator near the front row in jeans and a blue stripped dress shirt. But perhaps I should have; I think having a face behind the words is often helpful.I did train knife for a while with Felix and have done some stick and I do enjoy watching. I miss the park, but I understand business.

Iran? Don't be surprised. No question, I am a big fan of the carrot, I like and prefer diplomacy, but if that doesn't work, use a big stick. The job needs to get done. Frankly, if we could put nuclear weapons back in the bottle, I would be all for it, but that is not going to happen. Therefore, limiting them is our only choice by whatever means is necessary. And that includes N. Korea, etc.

My comments, concerns on most of these forums is Civil Rights. Somehow, I think we need to accomplish our goal(s) without sacrificing our Civil Rights otherwise we are no better than they are - and I hate to see the erosion of our Civil Rights, basic human decency justified as being necessary to beat the enemy. History has shown us that road is fraught with danger. But within the law, if someone does wrong, punish them to the max for all I care and if I am on the jury I will vote to hang them if the crime is appropriate (you see there can be some tough California jurors)

As for GM, his specific quote was "masses of brown people in mass graves." (not Asian, not Vietnamese, but BROWN PEOPLE in mass graves". It was his chosen preferred term; the term itself in it's context did not mock the the left, he easily could have used the word "Asian" or a specific group and accomplished the same point yet GM specifically chose "brown people" therefore I stand by my comment; I felt "brown people" to be derogatory, but perhaps others do not. If GM prefers to defend it or excuse his usage of the words, that is his prerogative. Although I decided not test the question by calling a few of the Asian fighters on Sunday "brown people". Don't know the reaction, but I do know I am getting older and I don't run that fast anymore.

A short response; I think Iran should be stopped at all costs from developing a nuclear weapon (as should North Korea or others like them). While I prefer deplomacy, military action may be necessary. They simply must be stopped; period.

As for the "crack" "Asians/Brown People" in another post GM himself specifically referred to Asians as "Brown People"; that term seems to be his preference; my preferred term happens to be "Asians". Therefore my comment is not a smear, but simply a quote of his words.

Gotta go to work. I enjoyed yesterday, and I noticed you are not bad on the drums!

GM; if you want to see "actual torture" terrible torture just look at Guantanamo and Abu Garaib and numerous other CIA locations in Europe; it is all very sad. It's seems we seem to want to live in the same sewer as them. But does that make it right???

As for Muslims/Islam I had dinner with my father tonight. He conceded (I do too) your point; 9/11 was terrible, albeit lucky (whatare the odds of both building falling) however his point (my point) as terrible as it was, it was an abberation. Muslims/Islamdo not threaten core American and simply cannot. Another terror attack yes, but core America; no. They do not have the means; intent is one thing, evil is evil, but means, i.e. nuclear weapons, a significant army, navy, delivery systems, etc. is another. So I sleep well, as do most Americans and frankly I/Americans don't worry about Muslims/Islam attacking the Santa Monica Shore, or invading Los Angeles. I assure you, we have enough problems to worry about, but worrying about Muslims invading America is very low our my list. Actually, I know quite a few; they are doctors and attorneys and they are all wonderful people. Unlike you, I don't think think they are all evil and a threat to America. I think you will find every race has good and bad; it is too bad you focus and seem to hate minorities; Muslims and Asians in particular, yet you are a minority. Rather odd...?

As for "facts and proof" interesting how you ignore the ones you can't (torture) contest, but manage to find (you must have lots of time) an article (I suppose I could find an article or source to support that the world is still flat; ahhh the beauty of cut and paste) to support your biased minority opinion. I suppose if I had time (I don't) I could cut and paste articles to match your prolific articles one to one, but the overwhelming evidence contradicts you! Our own government acknowledges torture! Good grief man, wake up! We've done wrong! It's a given. And basic Civil Rights have been denied; it might be you and me next time if we don't speak up. Accept it and please don't cut and paste absurdly biased articles. Open your eyes; the world is not us against Muslims and Asians (Brown People) etc. The world is getting smaller and we need to learn to live together. Most of my friends are very successful and work for large international corporations; they are not just American companies, but global companies and the world (Muslims, Asians, etc.) is their marketplace. No one seems to share you belief that a boogie man (Muslims) lives and threatens us behind every tree...

Water boarding? Would you like to try it???We used to think (we prosecuted) water boarding was torture; nowwhen we do it, it's OK? A near death experience, but it's not torture???

Or according to an FBI report;

captives were chained hand and fist in a fetal position for 18+ hours a day subjected to extreme temperatures close to freezinggaged with duck tapethreatened with death and kept in small (think very very small) solitary confinement cellsforced feeding with a tube bigger than your finger without anesthesiaMen were forced to urinate on each otherelectric shock until near deathsleep deprivationand on and on and on and on......................and this is just what we know!

And I like the quote, "Gitomo is a holiday camp compared to Abu Garaib where prison guards raped childrenand beat detainees to death"

Or that our military lawyers warned the Pentagon "that some of the methods used to interrogate and hold detainees after 9/11 violated military, U.S. and International Law.

Or, as I quote/mentioned above, our own Supreme Court said we are WRONG.

Are you blind??? Do a Google search; you end up with almost 300,000 hits on GUANTANAMO + TORTURE

Everyone KNOWS and admits we torture; the question is how much, how often, and is it justified. It's not!

I say it's just sad. As for them going back and fighting us; wouldn't you if you were tortured and saweveryone around you being tortured??? I too would join in the opposition. America is suppose to be the land of justice and fairness; what happened??? They are not eligible for POW treatment??? What? They don't wear uniforms, line up in a straight line, and blow a bugle? Neither did my forefathers inthe Revolutionary War or for that matter did the Jews in their fight for Israel. Nor did it happen in Vietnam! Now suddenly they are "enemy combatants". And shipped off to torture chambers in faroff lands??? WE SHOULD BE ASHAMED!!!!

Yet you/America has no shame. You quote Webster and justify not following the Geneva Convention? That's pretty silly. Look in another dictionary. I think you are just kidding me; of course you know we are committing torture but you just want to egg me on. I hope you are kidding...

I suggest common sense. Common decency. Ask yourself, how you would want to be treated if you were innocent??? And most of the people in Guantanamo will be found guilty of nothing! It is simply inhumane. Remember; there is a presumption of innocence?

You know, GM, I don't think you like Muslims - period. But the same could be said about people whodon't like Asians, or Jews, or Blacks, or Mexicans...... All have been persecuted; and it's not right.

james

ps GM; We've been fighting the Muslims since the 7th century??? Gosh, I bet if you ask most American since our founding 500+ years ago no one gives a rat's $%^& about the Muslims. Recently sure; as for Iraq we invaded them, remember? We are the occupying army. America should be more concerned about China or Russia; they could makea serious difference one day. I asked my Dad (a former Naval Officer and War Veteran) if he is worried about the Muslims? He said, "Who?" And "why?" "They are not a military threat to America's heartland!".

pps In a separate post, Crafty criticized the ACLU; I agree, they have their faults, but without them who would fightfor our Civil Rights? Perhaps today you don't like them; they are not popular, but they will be there for you too and have been in the past. Today it's the Muslims (yes GM I know you don't like them) but tomorrow it could be another minority. Civil Rights, humane decency for ALL people is the foundation of our country. Fighting for human rightsis never popular, but it's the moral thing to do.

What do I say? Actually, yesterday morning after a great deal of time I had just about finished composing and was about to post an eloquent and thorough response to GM's request for further support (I usually write versus cut and paste) when I pushed the wrong button (I just bought a iMac) and it disappeared.

Not happy! Had to go to work and again today, but I will try to give a brief summary of my position.

I suppose we could argue the legalities of the issue, but I am not an attorney. Rather I tend to think/expect America to take the high road; I take pride that we are a moral country and try to do the right thing albeit not always "right".

While I usually don't care what other's think, there is a limit. When Germany terms our treatment at Guantanamo as "torture", when England's Parliament says "it is a monstrous failure of our times" and it has been called the "gulag of our times" I begin to wonder.

The impartial International Red Cross has stated that, "Every person in enemy hands MUST have some status under international law; he is either a POW and as such covered by the 3rd Convention.... or a civilian covered by the 4th convention..." There is NO intermediate status; NOBODY in enemy hands can fall outside the law." Doesn't this simply make common sense???

I am not defending these individuals. If they are guilty of high crimes, string them up for all I care. BUT, there should be presumption of innocence. They should be given fair treatment, not tortured. And frankly, if they are found innocent, let go in a reasonable amount of time - not when the war on terror is over. I think even you, GM, given your writings might not think this will happen in our lifetime. Yet at this time over 400 individuals are being held, yet only two or three have been tried. I am willing to bet that less than 5% of those being held will be brought to trial and convicted of a serious crime. The other 95% are wrongly and illegally being held in my opinion.

"Enemy Combatant", "Freedom Fighter", "American Revolutionary War Fighter"; I don't legally know exactly what's the difference. And one dictionary's answer is different than another. But if it walks like duck, quacks like a duck, probably it is a POW duck

Even our U.S. Supreme Court said enough is enough in the recent Boumedience v. Bush case stating that Guantanamo captives were entitled to the protection of the U.S. Constitution and described the CSR Tribunals as "inadequate" (legalize for wrong) and invoked the Geneva Convention.

Back to my Duck, I mean if you have to fly prisoners halfway around the world to a little piece of land in Cuba that most people had never heard of, doesn't that force you to ask the question, "Why?" What are you hiding? I mean if it's legit, simply build a prison in CA, right? And if they committed a crime, I have confident that my fellow Californians will quickly find them guilty and sentence them appropriately. It's more honest than our military which hides evidence, acts as interrogators, prosecutors and defense counsel, judge, and jury and finally executioner. This is not a fair trial; it is a travesty.

And torture, our treatment of these individuals is simply wrong. And it's not the America I know and love.

I am passionate for our individual rights; they must be protected and applied to all. England has said, "one cannot fight violations of international law by committing further violations of international law." Because al Qaeda et al are often inhumane does that justify our losing our freedoms and becoming inhumane? I hope not.

I don't need to be a lawyer to know it's simply wrong. In my opinion they should be given fair and humane (Geneva Convention) treatment. Further, if innocent, let go. If guilty, do as you will. But be fair and just about it.

So why does nearly every industrialized CIVILIZED nation (these are our allies and friends) on this earth think our behavior is reprehensible, wrong, terribly wrong? Even our own U.S. Supreme Court said enough is enough! Our actions, our behavior is unconscionable.

You might want to actually read the Geneva conventions before you cite them. Until now, the US has never applied the US constitution to prisoners of war, even legitimate enemy soldiers in compliance with the laws of war.

The first attack on the WTC was in 1993. Clinton was across the river in New Jersey when it happened and couldn't be bothered to visit NYC to review the damage done. Al Qaeda metastasized into the global threat we face today under Clinton's two terms, the DOJ not indicting bin Laden until late 1998. Look at the strings of attacks during Clinton's terms in office, leading up to 9/11. I'm not sure how you think returning to that would result in anything but the same results.

Last time I checked, Bush wasn't running again, so you couldn't vote for him if you wanted to anyway.

Yes, thank God Bush is not running. Frankly, he should be impeached, but it is more bother than it is worth.

Ahhhh and as for the Geneva Convention; didn't America sign this??? Isn't America the land of "justice"? Don't we demand that our enemies adhere to these high standards? Don't we act indignant if they don't? Aren't we supposedly "better than them?"

The Geneva Convention; frankly, I am not sure you have read it and definitely Bush has not read it. Interrogation techniques - pure torture, a travesty of justice. So many provisions of the Geneva Convention have been broken it is hard to count. Again, thank God our U.S. Supreme Court read it and has also read our constitution and has therefore ruled Bush's definition of "Enemy Combatant" to be a bad joke. Germany has termed our treatment of prisoners as "torture". Guantanamo has been called the "gulag of our times.". British Judges have called it, "a monstrous failure of justice." Numerous Medical Journals have demanded that our treatment of prisoners stop; terming it "torture". And on and on... When will we stop??? Soon, but only thanks to the world's indignation at our inhumane treatment.

Fairness??? The military acts as interrogators (often illegal), prosecutors, and defense counsel, judge, jury and executioner. NONE of this guarantees a fair trial. America - where has our justice and sense of right and wrong gone? I bet less than 5% of those held at Guantanamo will even be finally charged with a crime, much less found guilty. The other 95% are innocent by definition; they are just being tortured and held illegally for years and years away from their family and friends and they have done nothing wrong except be in the wrong place and the wrong time. I find it all rather sad.

GM; I can't answer for the Civil War or the American Indian wars either; hopefully we have evolved since then. And am not sure if Clinton was or could have been successful, but I do know Bush is a failure. My vote this year is anybody but...

Crafty; so then why doesn't the Geneva Convention then apply??? Etc. Etc. Etc. I think America is trying to have their cake and eat it too.What the heck is an "enemy combatant"? I understand the term POW, that's fine, but an "enemy combatant"? "Enemy Combatant" seems like a POW with no rights. That is not how America does things...Or it shouldn't... but then we are back to Bush.

While I and many others question the true "Threat of Islam" to American shores; I mean they are not Japan or Germanyin WWII, they are not Russia with sufficient nuclear warheads during the Cold War, or even China, a growing superpower; my real concern is the frightening erosion of our basic Civil Rights. The list in endless, but Hamdan's trial is but one example.

Innocent of conspiracy (no evidence) he was "convicted" and may be required to serve a life sentence for being Bin Laden's chauffeur and driver. A truly terrible crime? Yet he already has served years in jail and suffered inhumanetreatment.

A trial??? Few of his basic rights that we take for granted were given to him. The interrogation itself was admittedly fraught with improprieties and coercion. Witnesses were not produced. Basic rights were ignored. One can go on and on....

However, perhaps more damning, military authorities made it clear that even if Hamdon had been acquitted of all chargeshe would not have gained his freedom!!! "As an enemy combatant he can be incarcerated until the end of the so-called War on Terror." And that will be when??? Truly unbelievable and sad.

Imagine if your son was involved. Imagine if your son was interrogated without basic rights and possibly tortured. And yet was still found innocent, however you were told, "Sorry, he still can't go home until the "War on Terror" is over". Another words,he may not be going home in this lifetime, yet he is innocent. What respect do you have for his jurors? For the system? For ?

4. Were China to suffer a serious terrorist attack or attacks at the Olympics (mind you, I am in no position to prevent or mitigate any attacks) it may well result in a strategic realignment of China into an alliance with the US, especially given the unprecedented degree of cooperation between the US and China in securing the Olympics, thus potentially avoiding a future military conflict that otherwise may well develop in the future.

5. China's split with the jihadist terror entities and nation-states would impair their operational abilities, thus improving US national security.

GM; not that you need my accolades or want my kudos but your above piece is very well put together. Whether I agree or not (I do) your point is well made, succinct, with good references, a simple explanation and good personal analysis. Further cut and pastes ties in to you analysis therefore I understand yours/Marc's point that comment is not always necessary.

On a personal note, I apologize for my behavior. Sometimes I get a bit passionate, but that is no excuse.

As for Abu Graib, I did not say you approved, but you did emphasize and point out that "no one died" rather than pointing out that their actions were wrong and that they should be punished. Often, in commentary what isn't said is also important. It was wrong, howeverto compare it to beheading; as you also pointed out that is absurd.

Collateral damage; it happens - too much. But you are right, war is not perfect and even"smart bombs" don't always hit their target and/or intel is wrong. I was more referring specifically to the few bad apples in a very large orchard that have been put on trial and "excused".

As for the crime in Japan - rape it is in the Obama Phenomena thread. GM posted a copy of the article from the Japan Times (I had already read it) in response to one of my comments on thelast page.

As for America going to war without an ulterior motive, I don't quite get your joke (not defendingClinton mind you, I'm just "dense" . Odd, but the Democrats (would you believe I am a registered Republican and may well vote for MCain; I just don't like Bush) have "gone to war" theirshare of the time. FDR, JFK, etc.

As for GM and I. I did reread your post. And I did reread your Rule #7. I guess it was my understandingthat to paste an article without commentary can be the response, but that should be the exception.Rather, commentary (see Rule #7) should usually accompany it. My comment about children is that truly they can cut and paste faster than I can, but often children don't think and analyze the problem,nor often do they even question the article itself. That is why this forum is for adults or at leastthinking children.

As for the GM's being "happy at the death of thousands of innocents" to further his cause, I don't thinkhe was kidding. But if a military man or any government official expressed such an opinion they would beunemployed and ostracized. Hoping for "masses of brown people" in "mass graves" (GM's words) isnot only not "lawyerly" it is simply unacceptable in my book. I think if he published the same on www.chinaview.cn (his source for his recent post) the reaction might be more vocal and antagonisticthan on this forum.

I do agree, I think your standards are high, frankly in all matters, but in this Forum too of course.But if one were to comb through the provided analysis and intel,I think it would favor one side's opinion. My thought is that objective analysis is beneficial. Also, my thoughtis that many articles posted are clearly questionable - they should not be accepted on face value. For exampleGM's immediate post above that you even questioned. I am suppose to believe a Chinese article publishedfrom a Chinese source/publication as "fact" without questioning the motive or truthfulness??? I don't thinksimply cut and pasting such examples further enhance the search for the "truth" or our knowledge thereof.

Marc, as I again review your "Rules of the Road" (well written) I sometimes question your comitment to "the mission here is to search for TRUTH." "If the facts prove us wrong, we change our minds." And, "if you are cross-current or even against the general currents of thinking around her, we incourage you to participate." And again, I raise my point about a discussion, not a cut and paste contest - rarely does GM comment, but he seems very quick with the cut and paste; but then so too is the average child.

Regarding your comments;

Guantanamo? You are an attorney, does it seem right to hold someone, on quasi American soil, for 4+ years without a fair hearing? I mean if they are guilty, I don't care if you string them up. But if they are innocent, let them go back to their families. How would you feel if one of your friends was mistakenly picked up and put in Guantanamo? Wrong place, wrong time; but did nothing wrong. And it has happened a lot! How many have really been found guilty of a crime after 4+ years. Very very few. We are the laughing stock of the world and when we talk about civil rights we seem hypocritical in my opinion. We are a democracy; time we acted like one.

Abu Gralb? No one was killed; that is true. Does that make it right??? Crimes were committed! Where is our sense of decency?

Iraq? 10's of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed as collateral damage. Not to mention soldiers found guilty but excused by their superior of criminal acts.

Raping Japanese HS girls. Actually GM did post that article. Did you read it? I bet in college you took statistics. Read carefully what the commander said, "American troops WHEN THE ARE OFF BASE commit one half the number of serious crimes than the general Japanese population does." Now mind you, the average soldier is probably "off base" a total of eight hours or less once a week. Yet in those few hours versus 24/7 they commit one half of the total crimes the Japanese population commits. Statistically, imagine if the soldiers were off base 24/7 how many crimes would be committed? Probably five+ times the rate of the general Japanese population! Simply put, American troops in Japan are not lawbiding; they have been running amok and that's the problem. Imagine if foreign troops visiting LA raped local girls... As for the Philippina girl reference, perhaps I was not clear. American servicemen also raped a Philippine girl in Japan. However, I do understand your point about the Philippines proper.

Perhaps you know, but I am not sure GM is happy with the civilians in charge. (PS My name is James, but Jason sounds fine too ) As for the military commanders, I fully agree, their advice is sorely needed. And as for your "dig"; I think America truly is great and does give, but I question whether we entered this war only for alturistic reasons. If there was no oil in Iraq, would we have gone? Would we still be there? I don't think so. We had our own (money - oil) selfish interests at heart...

And I agree, simply because it is written, left or right, often the source is biased and therefore should be examined for truth.

As for GM, no this is not some sort of ad hominem (thank God I had four years of Latin in High School and still remember ) attack. I did read the thread; I did grasp your "concept" and I kindly gave you at least two opportunities to change/retract your argument/words, yet you persisted and said a mass casualty attack is good; i.e. you would "feel like Churchill felt when America entered the war." I am sorry, but to be euphoric and relieved and wish that 10's of thousands of innocent civilians die to further your cause is barbaric and reprehensible. And no, I not dense, just moral. As for the comment about your wife; you mentioned that she is Asian; I just expressed hope she wasn't Chinese given your attitude.

Back to Marc; I guess if you want this "forum to serve as a tremendous resouce for people who want to read about a subject/theme" it should offer different perspectives on the question/subject, don't you think? And I think commentaryis important; yes it takes more time and thought, but anyone, even an eight year old can cut and paste ad nauseam.

I guess I am speechless; you actually try to justify your joy, elation and hope that 10's of thousands of innocent Chinese("masses of brown people") will die in a mass casualty attack. An end is never justified by such horrific means. I presume your Asian wife isn't Chinese? No family attending the Olympics?

As for my "criticism of the military" I sincerely support the military, but please don't forget the military is not above the law. Guantanamo, Abu Graib, and killing innocent Iraq civilians and raping Japanese High School girls and Philippine girls (the U.S. troops in Japan seem to run amok) is wrong and the individual soldier(s) should be severely punished, not slapped on the wrist.

And somehow you seem to forget the civilians control the military; the military exists to serve and obey. Period. The people decide when the war is over (Vietnam) (Iraq) and the people tell the military what to do; not the other way around. The military doesn't get a vote nor does it make policy. Their duty is to simply obey civilan control or they should resign. Truman was right.

Knowing that you now have a much improved chance of not being conquered is different than being happy innocents died.

I am still confused So you are saying that that if tens of thousands of Chinese die due a "mass casualty attack" during the Olympics we have a "much improved chance of not being conquered"? By whom - the Chinese? And therefore such attack is therefore justifiable (not necessarily "happy") that 10's of thousands of innocents die???

If the jihadis are successful in completing a mass casualty attack on the olympics, then I will feel as Churchill was to have felt, hearing about America's entry into WWII.

I am confused (it happens often ); I presume Churchill was euphoric, relieved, and exuberant when he heard that America had decided to enter WWII. And you are saying that if NEST/China is unsuccessful and a "mass casualty attack" happens killing ten of thousands of civilians you will have the same warm emotions as Churchill??? Anotherwords, you will be happy that 10's of thousands of innocent civilians died???

GM; enough! America is great at charity; we have big heart. America is great at giving MONEY,but do you want your son or daughter to DIE for Darfur, or anyone in African, or "masses of brown people"? The answer for most Americans is "No". We will diefor America, we will die for Europe, maybe Israel; I think that's it. I worry for Taiwan and Japan. It allsounds good, but when the chips are down, people fold. I grew up in upper middle class, La Canada (near LA) and now own a home there, but live in LA proper. Many fine people talk about charity and give money, but when CA state, quite some years agooffered a $500,000 to La Canada in addition to paying for the constructionto pay for low income housing, the La Canada say, "no thanks" - Not InBack Yard (NIMBY). I bet Marc's neighborhood would do the same.

People "care" (after the war) about the people in Vietnam, but it's talk. It's easyto give money; it's clean, and you feel good. But America doesn't like to get their hands dirty.And they sure were not willing to die to save them. Wrong or right; I don't know. We can'tsave all the world.

So please don't tell me about how much money Bill Gates gives (I think it's fabulous)when you are talking about war and genocide and America caring. Deep down,it doesn't. We have always been a nation of isolationists.

And I have a suggestion. Marc had once suggested that we talk like we are at dinner. Superb idea. Agree/Disagree; but enjoy the wine and conversation. But simply cut and paste articles serve no purpose. I suppose I could cut and paste 100 articles in my favor, but is that a discussion??? Imagine if I did that at our dinner together? You seem intelligent, albeit we disagree ; so give me your opinion, reference a quote if you like, but give me your opinion. It makesit much more interesting (let's have a drink one day) than simply cut and paste.

**After having been throughly mislead by the MSM and the "peace" movement, i'd cite the misreporting of the Tet offensive as a perfect example, the public opinion was affected by the psyops. It's the same steady drumbeat of doom that was tried to undercut this war. Do you really think the public would have supported cutting off aid to South Vietnam if they knew the horrors that would follow?**

Sadly, yes, I do think the public would have still supported cutting off aid to South Vietnam. Nobody here cared/cares about the "masses of brown people" (your words) or black people (see Darfur).

Admiral Fallon is truly a diamond in the rough; you might remember he was an advocate of a speedier withdrawal oftroops from Iraq in contrast to Bush and General Petraeus and that Admiral Fallon finally resigned in protest over the Bush's Iran policy? I fully agree, BO would do well to listen to his advice. Admiral Fallon is a man of experience and an individual willing to stand up and express an opinion against the norm.

Marc, perhaps I don't fully understand your point opening point. Yes, our country is a democracy, a republic, and our cornerstone is the Bill of Rights; we are truly blessed. Therefore of course we can say whatever we want to say; the Supreme Court has held that the right of free speech is an basic right and rarely can it be abridged.

Two people, two parties can disagree. Vietnam War protesters truly thought they were doing the right thing; maybe they were, maybe they weren't, but they changed history. Some conservatives wanted to invade North Vietnam and bring China into the fight. Again, maybe they were right, maybe they were wrong. But their voice was drowned out by the majority - the people who opposed the war in Vietnam. In a democracy as ours people are entitled, they are encouraged to speak out and express their opinion. And there is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion or criticism diametrically opposed to our President, our Congress, or our Military's thoughts. They exist to serve the American people. Perhaps these individuals are "despicable" only because you disagree with them??? However, in contrast to your opinion, I think they cannot and should not be held accountable for expressing their right to free speech. It the end, I truly believe it is what has made our country special and unique. Try "free speech" in China, N. Korea, Russia........

I do think lies are wrong, distortions are subjective, hatred of Bush is wrong (I don't agree with him, but like Bush, I have many conservative friends with whom I disagree and yet I still respect. Further he is our President; the Office as well deserves respect)and lust for power - well that has been going on by politicians and individuals for hundreds of years; hard to stop.

Over the weekend, the second-highest ranking member of al Qaeda called Democrat-led initiatives to end the war symbols of American defeat in Iraq.

In a 67-minute interview released on May 5, known terrorist Shaykh Ayman al-Zawahiri said legislation to tie war funding with a timetable for withdrawal, reflects American failure and frustration.

Last week, President Bush vetoed a bill delivered to him from the Democrat Congress that did this. Speaker Nancy Pelosis (D.-Calif.) House has since failed to overturn his veto and now negotiations to proceed appear to be in a stalemate.

Zawahiri lamented that this bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in this historic trap but said it proved jihad is moving from the stage of defeat of the Crusader invaders and their traitorous underlings to the stage of consolidating Mujahid Islamic Emirate.

Zawahiri said the withdrawal legislation helped to raise the banner of Jihad as it makes its way through a rugged path of sacrifice.

A senior government official said it was stunning that Zawahiri was watching Congress so closely.

The video was likely encouraged by comments from Democrat leadership. In an April 19 press conference Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) told media, This war is lost.

Two days later, in a statement issued from the Islamic State of Iraq, al Qaeda used Reids declaration as evidence of their success. In the past few days it became clear to every watcher and observer the magnitude of damage that hits the American administration and the defeated declarations of its leaders about the situation in the field in Iraq, it said. A serious statement came from Harry Reid the Democrat majority leader in the Congress who said: "'the war is in Iraq is hopeless and that the situation in Iraq is similar to Vietnam War.'

The Vietnam War was ended with the 1973 Foreign Assistance Act that cut funding for operations in the region. The end effect of the Foreign Assistance Act was best captured in a photograph taken by Hubert Van Es that showed hundreds of Vietnamese civilians queuing up for the last American helicopter out of Saigon. Soon, without American troops or any resources to protect the Vietnamese, the Communists took over South Vietnam and millions were killed by the Khmer Rouge communist regime in the power vacuum left by American withdrawal.

Similar actions could be taken by al Qaeda forces, who have failed to hold territory in Iraq and Afghanistan or disrupt American-led political processes there, should U.S. troops withdraw from the region.

Throughout the 2004 presidential election, Democrat candidate Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) was also quoted by name in communications from Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri.

Miss Carpenter is congressional correspondent & assistant editor for HUMAN EVENTS. She is the author of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's Dossier on Hillary Rodham Clinton," published by Regnery (a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

As we appropriately leave it to the people/gov't of Iraq to decide their fate, I think one should remember that so too was the Vietnam War left to the people. The American people voted overwhelmingly to get out of Vietnam. It was democracy in action. Of course we have a right to speak and to disagree with policy - that's what people do in a democracy.

As for the Khmer Rouge reference, I am a bit confused. The Khmer Rouge were in Cambodia, not Vietnam. They never killed Vietnamese and no "power vacuum" was left in Cambodia since we had no power in Cambodia. No doubt the Khmer Rouge were terrible; but note it was the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (the same army we fought) in 1979 who attacked and destroyed the Khmer Rouge; let's be fair; it was the Vietnamese were the saviors of Cambodia, not the U.S.

Frankly, I have not read it so clearly put that our longstanding and official policy was that if the people/gov't of Iraq says that we should go, then we should go. That is reassuring.

As for McCain, he does raise some good points. And, I think he definitely has more experience in foreign matters especially as it relates to military actions. But I think America is tired; like Vietnam, they simply want out albeit with some honor.

As for translations, I have done a little, and have a friend who is an expert (Caucasian guy (PhD. Yale) doing Chinese and Japanese) doing mostly legal work. He finds the nuances frustrating/challenging and needs a rest every thirty minutes during depositions because he is exhausted concentrating so much. That being said, this subject matter was not scientific or legal; rather it was straightforward and the German Magazine has confirmed that they will stand by their article and translation. I think the "spin" came after.

And yes, I agree the Sunnis hope/pray we remain. Yet I find it odd, a few years ago the Sunnis were our enemies. Now of course we worry about the Shia. Sometimes I think we replaced one bad apple with another. I am not sure which apple is more rotten. I always thought there was some truth to the comment, "sure he's a dictator, but he's our dictator." I worry that in 5-10 years the Shia will only be worse and Iraq in general will suffer more than they ever did before.

Where do you get the idea that the Iraqis clearly and unequivocally want us out?

Ahhhh I think it was the Iraqi Parliament over one year ago that clearly stated theywanted a timetable for withdrawal - the sooner the better. And of course this past week, Maliki jumped on board and clearly (before the spin) stated he wanted a timetable for our withdrawl within the next two years. Elections arein the fall, the people of Iraqi want our withdrawal; they simply want "terminationof foreign presence on Iraqi lands and to restore full sovereignty". Either Malikigets on board or he might be out. Similar to President Johnson; he too may finally bowto the people and leave office.

It's not the U.S. commander's on the ground's decision; they don't get a vote. Thevote belongs to the Iraqi people. It's their country; we are merely a visitor. Like the analogy I gave above, visitors are great, but they can overstay their welcome. Sometimes,they need to be sent packing.

McCain never seems to address the issue of the Iraqi people's desire. His only concernseems to be with the U.S. commander's opinion and us saving face. But it is the people'schoice, we finally got out of Vietnam (what a mess) because the people demanded it.Now it seems the American people and the Iraqi people are demanding the same.

My question below was do you think McCain will comply if the Iraqi government demandsa short term withdrawal plan regardless of U.S. commander's opinion on the ground?

I'm curious, since Iraq seems to clearly and unequivocally wants us out, be it 14 months or 16 months (BO's timetable) and that day comes and Iraq's governmentsays, "please leave, begin now to withdraw all your troops immediately",however the U.S. commander's on the ground say this is a big mistake,do we immediately obey the Iraqi government and leave?

McCain, who might be President at that time, seems to give credence to the opinion of the U.S. commander's on the ground, however it seems to me that it is the Iraqi's country, their choice as to when we leave - whether we are ready or not or whether we think it is appropriate is not relevant; it's their country - their sole decision.

Assuming we entered the Iraq war to free the Iraqi people from a dictatorship and establish democracyfor the people of Iraq, then I guess we all agree Obama's foreign policy plan. It also is the willof the Iraqi people.

I am sure we all read this weekend how Nouri Maliki "praised the Democratic presidential candidate'splan for withdrawing U.S. troops over a 16 month period." Embracing Obama's plan, he said, "that,we think, would the right time frame for a withdrawal." Further, he said that the best timefor withdrawal would be, "as soon as possible". He further said, "...the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the colalition troops in Iraq should be limited."

Quite clear; even the Iraqi's want us out ASAP. And even the Iraqi's want us out in 16 months or less. We've overstayed our welcome. It's like having guests; I love to have guests; I tell them please stay fora week or two, but after a month or so I am looking for a way to kick them out. They are no longer welcome.

Now it's odd, McCain believes "our withdrawal must be conditioned on the opinion of the U.S. commander'son the ground as to when they think it is the right time". Frankly, I don't get it. We came, we ousted the dictator,and we established elections. The freely elected government now wants us out - period, regardlessof what the U.S. commander's on the ground want. Iraq wants us to leave; is that clear enough? And who careswhat the U.S. commander's on the ground want? The country and the decisions belong to the Iraqi's not the U.S.

It's 100% the Iraqi's choice right? Even if they want us 100% out, ASAP, no remaining bases, etc. it's THEIR 100% choice, right? Frankly, while we can advise, we don't get a vote on the matter. It's their country. Not ours - we are guests. And our welcome is over. It's really quite simple; it is time to get out and as to whether we are ready or not doesn't matter.

1. Don't get your first point regarding treatment of GI's (it was bad) in relationship to my point about targeting a military target. My point was that the Japanese didn't target civilians like the USA did.

2. "Masses of brown people" (I haven't heard that in a while) "in mass graves don't bother the left..." actually it does, but at that point, the war was over - we had our butts kicked. As for "mass graves" what do you think Napalm does? Or fire bombing? Or nuclear war? It leaves mass graves of civilians.

3. Yep, war is brutal; no disagreement there. A better option? Find someone smarter than me. But I think it was/is wrong to focus on killing civilians like America did through fire bombing and nuclear. Why not stick to the military targets? It's a little more humane.

4. "choose between dead enemy civilians and dead US Troops, I'd choose for dead enemy civilians. I make no apologies if that's the only choice." I guess this is the main difference between you and I. I mean why not kill the woman and children in Iraq on sight if it saved a few American soldiers? Heck, by your definition if it helps the war effort, maybe we should target woman and children if it saves a American lives. Do anything to win, huh? If we lost WWII who do you think would have been on trial as war criminals. We are lucky, we either win and act noble, or we lose (Vietnam) and run fast.

5. We rebuilt German and Japan and western Europe... Hmmm, and you think we did that only out of love and kindness??? Please... We, the USA needed the deterrence against Russia. Also, we needed trading partners; who was left? And we needed military bases to protect the US. We never gave a hoot about Japan's defense; it was mostly for our benefit to stop Communism. I mean look at Japan; if it wasn't for our demanding (spoils of war?) huge property worth billions of dollars in Japan for our military bases right after WWII we would have been kicked out a long time ago. Would you believe it; Japan even pays us billions of dollars to keep our troops there - we are sort of like mercenaries. And this was all done from agreements enforced upon them after the war 50+ years ago. And our troops still can't keep their pants on off base. If the Japanese people voted today, we would be sent packing.

As for my "noble" comment, what would America do? Would WE allow a foreign power to station troops on our property? Ha, we don't even allow them in our hemisphere. We like two sets of rules, one for us and one for everyone else. Russia is recently upset we are planning a missile system in their backyard, but we say, "don't worry...." but if they tried to do that in Mexico we would send troops to stop them if necessary. Again, two sets of "convenient" rules. Again, a benefit of being the biggest kid in the sandbox, but that doesn't make it right.

6. Japanese American Citizens in Prison camps. Actually, a lot of Democrats and Republicans supported putting the Japanese in prison camps. But the German's were safe in America despite all their atrocities during the war. Now that's true racism. And yes, other countries have racism too, they just don't deny it or ignore it like we do and act noble about it. It's the hypocrisy I hate.

7. "Too old" That sounds like blatant ageism to me". I love old people, but Yep, I think he is too old to be our President. And yep, it is blatant ageism. IBM wouldn't hire him to be their president; he's too old. Microsoft wouldn't hire him to be their president, he's told old....... Heck, no major USA or International Company or Consulting firm would hire him to be their president because he is too old. Simply put, he's past his prime for the job. And I can't think of a job that is more important. We need someone at their best. So why would America hire him to be our President?

***Again, as for CCP, you got to love it; Obama as President, Hilary as the Vice President, andBill (Mr. President) as the VP's wife. Would you want to be President???***

It will certainly keep Rush Limbaugh rolling in dough.

I would like to have the qualities to be President. But I don't. First and foremost I like my sleep.

I have a feeling BO is going to choose Colin Powell as his running mate. I think Powell would do it from what I read.

Actually CCP I didn't mean it personally. What I meant was I don't think anyone would want to be President with Hilary as VP and worse, her husband being a former President, lurking around in the background and stealing the show.

As for Colin Powell, I think he is an outstanding individual, but I would be very surprised if Obama chose a black running mate. Our country is not there yet; a black President and a black VP would never win. But Powell is great, heck, if McCain chose Powell for VP that is a good reason to vote for McCain.

Before you defend Imperial Japan, you might want to read up on the "Rape of Nanjing/Nanking".

You are right.

But, if you want to bring the subject up, Pearl Harbor was an attack on a Naval Base...a militaryoperation against military personnel.

But what was My Lai...etc..............And from what I heard from my slightly older friends,who did serve in Vietnam, we didn't follow the Geneva Convention....And do you reallythink Naplam discriminated between troops and woman and children???

And the fire bombing of Tokyo??? 250,000 mostly women and children dead???Were pretty good at killling woman and children. But maybe that's just war?

And the atomic bombs, again 500,000 dead, again mostly woman and children???There were few if any troops in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. There was no industrial complex there.........Just families.

Please don't act so noble. We do what it takes to win, but we are no better than anyoneelse.

Not to mention putting in prison American Citizens by the thousands whose only "crime"was that they were of Japanese ancestry. Odd, my Grandfather (a doctor) was a Germanliving in Wisconsin but he never go arrested. Nor did my Mother. A little bit of racism again???America likes to blame the "other guy" especially if they are Black or Asian or Islamic or Mexican.

America likes to to take the high road, but usually (WWII Europe was different) we have a monetary self interest, not idealism at heart. We just like to "justify" our wars, paint theother guy as the "bad guy" rather than calling a spade a spade. It's more politically correct.And it sure sells better.

As for Obama, I am not saying he is a panacea. But McCain? Too old, that is a big deal to me,and frankly, if his daddy wasn't an high ranking admiral, McCain would be a nobody. He is an opportunist. He dumps his wife for a younger and more important, richer (and smart) woman. All his life he has succeeded through using people. Yes, he has experience, and frankly,he is not a bad guy, but.....couldn't the Republicans do better???

But back to America. Nothing wrong, we simply do what we need to do that being what's good forAmerica. But please don't cloak it behind righteousness, goodness, and democracy. We do it because it benefits America. Period. As does everyone else; we just happen to be the biggestand baddest kid on the block. That doesn't always make us right.

As for CCP I take full credit; don't blame OR give credit to Obama

Again, as for CCP I agree, I don't know what in the world Obama is doing giving a major speech in Germany.I agree, maybe he should win the election first??? By no means a given - I think it will be close.

Again, as for CCP, you got to love it; Obama as President, Hilary as the Vice President, and Bill (Mr. President) as the VP's wife. Would you want to be President???

Gaffemaster Alert: The Pearl Harbor BombPOSTED AT 10:10 AM ON JULY 18, 2008 BY ED MORRISSEY

Barack Obama must have gone off script again in West Lafayette, Indiana on Wednesday. When addressing the crowd on national security, Obama mangled the attack on Pearl Harbor. For a Hawaii native, this tops the Young Gaffer list of historical fumbles (via Dean Barnett):

But it is wonderful to be back in Indiana. In a few moments, well open up the discussion. But I want to offer a few comments about some of the emerging threats that we face in the 21st century and offer some ideas about how we can face those threats.

Throughout our history, Americas confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world.

Just to clarify: a whole lot of bombs fell on Pearl Harbor. And the threat wasnt the bomb, it was the empire that send massive waves of planes to drop them on our Pacific Fleet. Those bombs fell because we didnt adapt to the threat, and in fact we kept telling ourselves that we could talk the Japanese out of their policy of aggression and empire. We came within a few aircraft carriers of losing the Pacific out of our willful blindness to the nature of the Japanese.

The same can be said for the nuclear annihilation Obama also mentions. The threat wasnt nuclear annihilation as such; that was part of the threat, not the entire threat itself. The real threat came from another kind of empire, one that wanted to conquer from within as well as without  and the American Left after 1969 spent most of its time arguing that they threat didnt really exist, that Soviet Communism wanted peaceful coexistence, and that socialism and Communism was the achievement of Utopia. After Jimmy Carters disastrous cheek-kissing with Leonid Brezhnev and the invasion of Afghanistan that followed, America woke up and put adults in charge - and within a decade, the Soviet Union collapsed of its own contradictions and rot.

This gaffe goes beyond placing Auschwitz and Treblinka in western Germany or putting American troops in Poland during World War II. It speaks to a fundamental superficiality of Obama, a man who seizes tropes and themes with little understanding of their significance or their details. Obama reveals himself as a man who doesnt understand threats at all, and whose instinctive responses would make them far worse.

I am not sure about this idea that I must always agree or support "America, right or wrong". Somehow, we always justify our actions because "we are the good guys" and never even look at the opposite side's perspective.

You said, take Japan for example. "...we couldn't talk the Japanese out of their policy of aggression and empire." Mind you, England had an empire, France had an "empire"; frankly, what were we doing in the Philippines? But we never objected to their/our empires. A little racism maybe??? Or was it a money issue like it usually is in America? Or like a kid in the sandbox who was there first and wants to keep all the good toys...

But my real Japan question/point is that in July 1941 we placed a tight embargo on Japan's oil. Now for example let's say someone did that to us today. And remember, Japan has no natural resources to speak of - it is a small island dependend upon trade. Now if someone did that to us today, how long would it last before we came out shooting? And I bet we would justify it based upon those $%^#$% other guys placing an embargo upon our oil. We would bomb the heck out of them and say they are the bad guys and that they started it; somehow we would justify our actions. But fairness should work two ways.

Or we sabre rattle and vehemently criticize various Arab states for providing guns and resources to our enemies in Iraq, but wasn't it our guns and supplies that helped the Afghanistan's defeat the Russians. Now it's OK if we provide weapons, supplies and money, against the Russians, but it's not OK if someone does the same thing against us??? Isn't there some hypocrisy there? Now I'm not saying we shouldn't object and stop them, just don't do it on moral grounds and act like we are innocent.

I think one should try to be a little objective rather than always assume our way is the only way and always the best way. I always hated the expressions, "America, right or wrong", or "America, love it or leave it". Sometimes we are wrong and sometimes things need to change. And sometimes, just because we are the biggest kid on the block, it doesn't make it right to always use force.

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:20 PM PTJournalism: Barack Obama is headed overseas, with the three network anchors trailing behind him like groupies ga-ga over a rock star. And they say that media bias is just a myth.

Obama will begin his travels Friday with a visit to Europe and continue on to the Middle East. These are not normal campaign stops for a man running for president. But Obama is no common man  at least as the media see him.They have uncritically anointed him a savior and are eager to be in his presence as he makes his "historic" trip. NBC News anchor Brian Williams, ABC anchor Charles Gibson and CBS anchor Katie Couric will be on hand, and they'll scratch and claw each other to get that exclusive interview.Obama's arrogance  playing president and planning to speak in front of Berlin's symbolic Brandenburg Gate  is unseemly enough. But the media fawning is a disgrace. Other than those reporters assigned to John McCain, do they even know that Obama's opponent in the fall has made not one, but three trips overseas since March?Not only did the anchors pass on those tours, their respective networks "provided little if any coverage of any of them," according to an analysis by the Media Research Center. When McCain was in Europe and the Middle East for a week in March, the networks that will immortalize Obama's triumphant tour carried only four full stories on the trip."CBS did not even send a correspondent along" and offered "only one report consisting of only 31 words" over 10 seconds for "the entire week Sen. McCain was abroad," the MRC reports.The media, which seem endlessly interested when Obama downs a hot dog or picks up a basketball, and which feel a collective tingle in their legs whenever he speaks, couldn't even limit their description of the junior senator's haircut to 31 words.Network chiefs say they need to be with Obama on this trip to record how he performs on the world stage. That's plausible. We'll believe it, though, only if Obama commits a gaffe and the press actually does more than gloss over it.The liberal national media are free to put all their resources into Obama coverage, encourage Americans to vote for him and ignore McCain entirely. Our Constitution gives them the liberty to do just that. What rankles us is the facade of objectivity they put up. All we're asking for is some honesty.

Maybe that is because Sen. McCain is soooooo boring??? I mean listen to him speak; even his supportersfall asleep. The networks are a business. They go where the ratings will be. Who/What doesAmerica want to watch??? What will drive ratings? And it isn't McCain.

And good grief, McCain is over 70 years old! Most people retire at 65; most top investment firmsand nearly all top accounting firms have mandatory retirement at 60 - they want fresh new ideas and energy from people at their prime. I mean we all should love and respect our Grandfather, but ...

ps Didn't Sen. McCain earlier criticize Obama for not going overseas and on at least two occassions didn't he tauntObama to do so? I guess Obama just listened and followed his advice. And now McCain complains that Obamagets all the attention??? hmmm

David, in your example, I am sticking with "nothing should be done". At least by you or a civilian. As for calling the police, it's my understanding that the Austrian Policeare very efficient. They would be there ASAP - I think your inlaws have a good handle on the situation.

I happen to agree with GM's posts, all of them, but I like the one where he says,"Is it worth killing, dying, or going to prison for?". So David, as per your commentthat you only get involved "if your risks are minimal", I guess that means you onlyget involved if you know you are bigger, stronger, and/or better armed?

In contrast, Karsk asked if and I agree there is a line. In the original post, when a child is being brutally murdered, I think it would be worth killing, dying or going to prison forto try to save the life of that innocent child. However, in a domestic situation, no one is totally innocent - GM's advice, just stay out of it or call the police. Even the police have a toughtime handling the situation as pointed out above. As your in laws implied, mindyour own business.

PS I guess I still don't quite get the "sex slave" quote. It bothers me.You didn't even meet the couple yet you have a strong opinion. I think your quote is presumptuous. Is it language? Here in LA many people are married to foreigners and theirlanguage is not common and communication is an issue. So if I go to Italy, France or Germanyand come home with a wife (I only speak Japanese and a little Spanish) she would be my "sex slave"?Is it economics? So second/third world country brides are presumptively "sex slaves"? Anotherwords, most mainland Chinese, Philippina, Thai, Latina, etc. wives are "sex slaves"?I still don't quite get it. I think it best not to make presumptions of other people's relationships. Nor to intercede unless you are asked and someone's life is obviouslyin danger.

Horrible. It's amazing that people can witness this and not do anything to stop it, but I do think it's "normal". I had a couple of psychology classes in college and remember this "phenomenon" actually has a name that escapes me at the moment. I think one lesson to be learned is that you cannot rely upon anyone to help you if you're ever being attacked yourself.

On a related but very less intense note...this weekend I was having dinner at my in-law's house. We were eating out on the back patio and started hearing a woman screaming. At first it sounded as if she could have been playing, as if being tickled too severely, but then it started to sound like she was in pain. We recognized that it was coming from the house next door, where a man lives with what we think is a "mail order", young Thai wife. My wife and I got up and quickly went to where we could see the house, and just as I was going to jump the fence, the woman stopped screaming and the man appeared, pulling up his pants. However, he looked very relaxed and not at all like he was involved in a physical confrontation or abusive moment in any way. He looked a bit embarrassed and said sorry, they were just playing around. Then a moment later the woman came out and looked as if nothing was wrong, said hello, etc. These people are very strange. They have no curtains, and you can see that they watch porn at all hours of the day, from the time they get up until the time they go to bed.

What struck me about the situation though was that if myself and my wife would not have gotten up to see what was going on, my in-law's would not have. When we came back to the table my in-laws said they had heard the woman screaming before, and had also heard the couple arguing, yelling, etc, but that it was "their problem". I said, yeah, but you can't allow someone to get abused without doing anything, and my father-in-law said, "of course not", totally agreeing with my statement. However, although he would verbally say you can't allow abuse to occur, he didn't get up to see what was going on. I find this to be strange and a bit disconcerting.

I've noticed similar situations in New Orleans, where I'd stop a man from abusing a woman...very often drunk...and other people would be standing around doing nothing. While I think it's horrible to stand by and do nothing, I do think it appears to be quite the normal human instinct. Maybe it's a Darwinian survival mechanism...the weak are allowed to die, and you increase your chances of survival by staying out of trouble. Really, I think the lesson to be learned is that if you don't act, no one will, and not to expect help yourself.

"Mail order" young Thai wife? And that means??? Having stayed in Bangkok as a guest of the Japanese Embassy, I found the Thai people, especially the woman to be intelligent and very attractive; definitely equal to American woman I have met. And this couple seem to enjoy each other. Frankly, I think Asians in general seem to get a bad rap here.

And your advice, "just as I was about to jump the fence", doesn't cut it. Sure, get up if you want. Sure knock on the door if you want - but maybe they won't answer. I wouldn't, especially given the above circumstances Or call the Police if you want. But, while I don't know LA law, here in liberal CA if you jump my fence and threaten me, I might simply shoot you. Justifiably. So think twice, thrice before you get involved in someone else's domestic business. And don't ever jump someones fence and threaten them. Perhap because they are older, and perhaps wiser, in contrast to your opinion, I do think your "inlaws get it"; they would call the police if they thought it was appropriate, but they are not going to intrude in a neighbor's home or in a domestic situation. It's none of their business. Again, as I mentioned above, that is the job of the police; you need to stay out of it. Simple; let the police handle it. Nearly all civilians including myself are not qualified to interced; further, it's inappropriate, and you might get hurt or worse.

This past weekend, I was going to the store and I drove past a pretty large First Nations fellow, manhandling his girlfriend. He was yelling and screaming and although I did not see it, I think he was slapping her around. I stopped my car and started to walk over to the guy. At the same time about 6 other men did the same thing. On of them visible took out a cell phone and started dialing. I was to one side and about 4 of the other men were on the other. We are about 50 feet away. In this case, the fellow noticed.

He started talking to the crowd. Saying really loud things like "Whats your problem?" and shooting the bird. No one approached but no one left. He kept chest pounding and walked to his car shaking his head. His girlfriend got in with him.

Something mild perhaps compared to the above horrendous story. Sometimes the right combination of things match up. The guys awareness was still there. He wasn't enraged nby the time people had gathered. The proximity of the people around him, the witnesses, the phone call, and the growing attention was enough in this case.

The story above, seems way past that. Very bizarre.

How about a belt looped over the guys head tied to a truck?

Karsk

While no one can excuse helping an innocent baby, or other truly extreme circumstances, in general I question the appropriateness of sticking your nose in somebody else's business. A "crazy" guy on a bus with an umbrella? Not your problem, that is up to the bus driver to decide what to do. As for the above example, note, his "girlfriend got in the car with him". So if she doesn't have a problem, why is an outsider suppose to intercede? And guess who the police would arrest if you "looped a belt over the guys head tied to a truck"? For your "heroic" actions, you could well be serving serious jail time not to mention a civil suit. Best to call 911, period, and move on. The police are trained to handle the situation, the average citizen is not. Even the police, the experts, time after time, advice citizens not to intercede. I think it is good advice.

1. signed and acknowledged clear company policy not to interfere2. there was no mention of Beverly having any military/police experience3. the local Police Capt. in his expert opinion clearly said it was wrong to interfere4. the MN EEOC also ruled that the employee acted wrongly and in error5. the female employee was NEVER attacked proven as per the video AND testimony given by the same female employee

Frankly, the Marathon spokeswoman was right, "he endangered himself and her(the other female employee)."

This story has a "happy ending" but what if the robber, rather than simply leavingwith $15.00, out of anger or stress shot Beverly AND shot and maybe killed the other innocent female employee who had merely been following company policy? Would webe singing praises to Beverly for contributing to his co-worker's death? And notto mention, while not important compared to human life, the female employee and/or her estate would probably file a wrongful death suit against Marathonbecause of the grossly negligent Beverly.

This story has a "Happy Ending" and resolved itself ONLY because Beverly finally listened to the robber and decided NOT to be a "Hero". Otherwise his stupidity almost got twopeople killed over $15.00.

I'm in Japan business/pleasure and dominating the TV news while I eat breakfastis the the knife attack in Tokyo (Akihabara). In three minutes, he attacked 17 people and killedat least 7. Truly tragic. It shows the speed and power of the knife.

Personally I never worried about getting sued. I could articulate and justify every single thing I ever did. And I did the things I thought needed doing without the slightest hesitation.

I did get sued one time (and only once) in the early 80s. For a million dollars! Man that was like badge of honor. The case was thrown out at the first hearing. Because when you bogusly claim you have been beaten to within an inch of your life at the time of arrest, then your booking photos should not show that you did not have a single scratch on you.

I did go major hands on a bandit once. Under your theory I should have been quivering in my shoes from his lawsuit. To him it was a badge of honor. Two days after the event, when he was in a cell in the facility and saw me, he started bragging to the others in the cell about the the ass whooping he got, and asked me to verify it to the others.

Cold War Scout,

Ahhhh actually they (Police/Sheriff) DON'T get to interpret the Law; that's why we have Judges and maybe the DA's Office. But the Police/Sheriff? They simply enforce the law - it is NOT their prerogative to interpret it.

As for the lawsuit, I agree, don't worry, not your problem; here in LA the City pays with taxpayer's money. Frankly, I think the money really should come out of the Officer's personal assets. His mistake, it should be his "ass".

As for the "major hands on a bandit once", don't know about that, but maybe that is why LA Police Department still has the Feds looking over their shoulder and LA is spending millions on Federal Mandated Police Oversight and has awarded millions to citizens falsely manhandled and falsely arrested. Wasted taxpayer's dollars at work all because of a few rogue and publically vilified cops.

Kind of gives Police/Sheriff's a bad name, don't you think? I kind of feel sorry for the many outstanding ones like the Senior Deputy I mentioned.

I think JDN's response to Crafty on a couple of issues is basically a solid one. However...

Quote

Let me give you an example. As a hobby/business I really like photography. I usually shoot people; individuals. I was at the Van Nuys Courthouse last week for court business, but I brought my camera; I like watching people outside court. But maybe I should have brought a gun, it would have been easier to explain. As I entered, the rent a cop said, "No cameras allowed" to me. I said, "No, the sign says, "no taking pictures, I don't intend to take a picture inside the Courthouse and the camera/lens cost over 10k so you can't have it."

Having had to help draft these types of polices, I can attest to the importance of absolute specificity and clarity. I suspect the prevailing courthouse rules are "no taking of pictures", not "no possession of cameras."

Quote

The law is the law; obey it, but if you are within your rights and are obeying the law and have nothing to hide, do not fear or be concerned about the erroneous opinion or negative inferences of a police officer.

Certainly not a personal policy I would encourage but to each his own. There are ways to deal with people who want to get all Donkey Kong. From the moment somebody takes that attitude, they have to be right every time. The cop only has to be right once. I won't go into tactics and techniques, but I have personally dealt with people wanting to show their ass in a most satisfactory and very satisfying manner (as in I left the courthouse that Friday night and had a beer, and they got to go to the Baltimore city Jail).[/quote]

Cold War Scout,

Maybe I misinterpreted your comment, but..."Donkey Kong"? "show their ass"? hmmmm I think in the above post I mentioned that I was polite as was the Senior Deputy. And I broke no law; I just pointed out my legal rights. Actually, the only "ass" in the story was the initial Sheriff who huffed and puffed but didn't know his own "ass" about the law. I just listened to him and asked for his Supervisor. Maybe that's why he was the Supervisor...

So assuming similar legal circumstances in your example, "they went to Baltimore City Jail" on what bogus fictitious charge??? I don't know Baltimore Laws, but in LA, if you arrested and booked someone (who knows the law and has a few dollars) given the above scenario, before you finished your beers, he would be out of jail, also, most likely your personnel file would be negatively noted and you might even be suspended on Monday, plus the civil suit against the City/County would be for more than an LA Police/Sheriff makes in a year. Not good.

Police/Sheriff's are not above the law; their duty is to know and enforce the law; Police/Sheriff's don't make the Law. And it is the Public's responsibility to obey the law.

"Another interesting question might have been, if I was stopped by the officer in LA and he noticed my 6" screwdriver on the seat next to me; what would he do? Probably nothing, but IF he asked, "what is the screwdriver for?" and I said, "self defense", he would be entitled to arrest me for having a dagger longer than 3" (LA City Limit).

"But the issue still is not "intent". The issue is whether the instrument is legal to carry or not."

Disagree. By your own words it is precisely the intent that turns it into a dagger.

As for the right to not answer, I suppose so-- but I submit that an answer the equivalent of "I don't have to tell you" is likely to heighten the LEO's propensity to make all the negative inferences he can and act upon them. Yes?

Actually no; it was not my words that turned it into a dagger; it already by definition was a dagger, i.e. a sharp pointy thing; however it is up to the officer's judgment whether he was looking at an illegal weapon; i.e. a dagger longer than 3" in LA jurisdiction. I understand your point, and perhaps I am splitting hairs; BUT if I has said nothing, or if I had said, "I am fixing my front door" he still would have the right to arrest me for having an illegal weapon (dagger longer than 3"). It is the item itself, the dagger, that is illegal, not my intent.

And yes, it is likely to heighten the LEO's propensity to make negative inferences if I am vague or refuse to answer. So? If I am carrying nothing illegal, i.e. only a baseball bat he can huff and puff, and maybe waste some of my time, but what else can he do?

Let me give you an example. As a hobby/business I really like photography. I usually shoot people; individuals. I was at the Van Nuys Courthouse last week for court business, but I brought my camera; I like watching people outside court. But maybe I should have brought a gun, it would have been easier to explain. As I entered, the rent a cop said, "No cameras allowed" to me. I said, "No, the sign says, "no taking pictures, I don't intend to take a picture inside the Courthouse and the camera/lens cost over 10k so you can't have it." The Sheriff came, we discussed it, and it was agreed I could keep the camera. I testified at a trial, did my job, and went outside the courthouse, had a nice cigar and cup of coffee. I then began shooting (camera, I forget this is a martial art forum) individuals.

Sheriff comes up to me and yells, "Stop". "Why" I say? He said, "it's illegal to take pictures". I said, "No, it's illegal to take pictures inside the courthouse, but outside is fair game.". He huffed and he puffed. We argued, I asked for his supervisor, and the Senior Deputy, while not very happy (we were both polite and courteous) agreed that I have every right to take pictures of people outside the courthouse. My long (sorry) point? The law is the law; obey it, but if you are within your rights and are obeying the law and have nothing to hide, do not fear or be concerned about the erroneous opinion or negative inferences of a police officer.

If a LEO pulls over someone with a baseball bat on his front seat, and conversation reveals no baseball game in the near past or future, and upon query as to the reason for the bat the answer is given "Self Defense", I'm thinking this could lead to legally unhappy consequences.

Re Section 12020, I'm thinking the same applies to that screwdriver in your pocket. If frisked per a "Terry stop" (calling all LEOs, am I using the term correctly?) i.e. a pat down search and the screwdriver turns up and your answer is "self-defense", again I am thinking your intent could lead to legally unhappy consequences.

Yes?

I think the two items are different. No law that I know of specifically refers to or describes a baseball bat. Of course, if I use the baseball bat, a pipe, golf club, etc. illegally, a weapons charge may result and lead to "unhappy consequences". However, you have no obligation to tell the officer why you have the baseball bat, golf club, etc. nor is there any thing he can charge you with even if you do say "self defense".

In contrast, a screwdriver can legally be interpreted as a sharp pointy thing, i.e. a dagger and therefore by definition illegal (12020) to carry hidden. He pats you down, finds that you are carrying it concealed and therefore it is an illegal weapon, which then probably will lead to your "legally unhappy consequences."

Another interesting question might have been, if I was stopped by the officer in LA and he noticed my 6" screwdriver on the seat next to me; what would he do? Probably nothing, but IF he asked, "what is the screwdriver for?" and I said, "self defense", he would be entitled to arrest me for having a dagger longer than 3" (LA City Limit).

But the issue still is not "intent". The issue is whether the instrument is legal to carry or not.

I am one of those $%^& "democrats" you talk about. And, I am against the war in Iraq...

That said, as I went to dogbrothers.com this evening; I almost cried and my wife actually did; what a beautiful picture to remind us of the ultimate sacrifice our soldiers have given inthis war and (as you pointed out) in previous wars. Also, although rarely mentionedin the news, many, thousands have been injured; they ALL should be honored.

I certainly appreciate your giving us the sections of the CA code involved and your summary of them. May I push my luck further and ask for the URLs and/or the actual language of the statutes?

Also, may I suggest what remains open on the question of intent is whether one is allowed to carry ANYTHING with the intent of it being a weapon? A baseball bat is legal , , , for baseball. A bat for the purpose of a weapon may not be. Anyone?

CD============

Crafty; sorry my computer skills are limited

As for baseball, pipes, etc. the way it was explained to me is that "if you use it inan unlawful manner, there could be a weapon's charge.". But there is no law prohibiting youfrom carrying a baseball bat in your car. Nor do you have to explain why you have it.

In contrast, if you are carrying a screwdriver, knitting needle, etc. in your pants pocket concealed, it might be considered a "dagger" and you could be charged under PC 12020et al even if your "intent" was only to fix your front door.

"...In a Model Penal Code jurisdiction, you could have a complete defense."

You succinctly raise many important points regarding "self defense". Question, I am not an attorney (I do Fraud Investigation) but to clarify, it is my understanding that California is NOT a Model Penal Code jurisdiction, the Model Penal Code is simply advisory here. Rather, it is my understanding that California Courts usually consult Common Law to determine final meaning. Am I correct, or???thank you.james

The original officer was a fool to waste my time and I told him so in no uncertain terms in front of his Sargent and everyone else.

Nothing like antagonizing a LEO to get your point across. Was that really necessary?

Quote

He was a simply stupid and/or on a power trip.

Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem a bit bent on proving your point to "clueless" cops. Perhaps you know the law and should be commended for that, but being abrasive about it tends to hinder smooth resolution.

SB-Mig

I did state my case; he didn't like it.

As for "clueless cops" isn't that a scary thought? Isn't it their job to be clued in to the law before they assert authority?I mean they are public servants and all... Note, I find most cops to be intelligent, hardworking, and polite; I respect them. But "clueless cops" arrogant cops? Sorry I have absolutely no respect for clueless/stupid people who abuse authority.

California Penal Code 12020 Street Carry Laws...Fixed blades must be openly carried; note any possible weapon, i.e. a screwdriver carried concealed can be considered a dagger and you could be in violation. Non switchblade pocket knives that are in the closed position can legally be carried concealed or open carry.

California Penal Code 626.10 Basically, don't carry a knife K-12. However on a college campus while you may not carry a fixed blade, you may carry a folder of any length.

Los Angeles City Ordinance I am sorry, I don't know the Ordinance, but I do know that LA prohibits open carry (and remember State Law says no concealed carry for a fixed blade) of ANY knife over 3". This would include folders. However, if you carry your folder 100% concealed, and it is over 3", this would seem to be legal but...

NOTE, nowhere in any CA Law (in contrast to some other states) is INTENT mentioned. Intent is not an issue until you use the knife; but that is a whole other discussion.

The issue is whether your intent is for it to be a weapon. IF IT IS, then X, Y, and Z follow.

CD

Actually, INTENT is irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with telling a LEO that my intentis "self defense"', period. Forget the silly excuses, the seatbelts, etc.; tell the truth,you have the knife for "self defense". There is nothing wrong with that in CA. Just useit wisely.

If the LEO doesn't like the answer, tell him, "too bad, etc."; that's the CA State Law. LEO's,and I like most LEO's but they tend to have a power trip; however if you know the law all they can do if huff and puff. I hate being told what to do when that person doesn't know what theyare talking about.

I was at Long Beach Courthouse last week. The Sheriff at the door said my folder was toolong (I declared it) and he was going to confiscate it . Bullshit; Long Beach has no City Ordinance and State Law says I can carry a folder of any length. I asked for the desk Sargent; he looked it upand agreed. I admit an apology was not forthcoming, but it should have been. The original officer was a fool to waste my time and I told him so in no uncertain terms in front of his Sargent and everyone else.He was a simply stupid and/or on a power trip.

The key; know the law and note, each City might be different;LA for example has a 3" limit on exposed blades (all fixed knives must be exposed).But INTENT is never an issue.

The PD solution has much to recommend it technically, but apart from LEOs and military in the field, what jurisdiction allows civilians to legally carry one?

Actually, a PD is quite legal in California, however the knife, like all fixed blades must be carriedexposed; it cannot be concealed. Also, note certain cities have length limits, i.e. Los Angelesis 3". Now whether a PD is a good choice for self defense, I don't have an opinion.

As for another point, "why" you are carrying the knife, assuming it is carried exposed and meetslength limits etc. is not a legal issue in California. My answer to a Leo can be to cut tomy cigars, cut rope, or simply "self defense". Leo's do't like "self defense", but "use" is not relevant.

Maija said, "I tell you, when you get over 30 the warrenty runs out and then over 40you gatta use it or lose it..." I don't like the implications now that I am 50

Sting said, "I challenged the popular notion that yoga is a superior method for increasing youthand maintaining the body over time".

I don't know about "increasing youth", Ponce de Leon and I am still looking for that fountain,but having played competitive tennis in college, run marathons, been a gym rat, in the last few years I have found yoga to be truly beneficial. I have never been so limber, my knees don't hurt anymore, (I used to fence and still practice lunges) and I actually feel light on my feet and balanced. Oddly, my legs are stronger than ever and the amount of weight I can push is nearly the same or more. And for my age, my speed is excellent. I am not saying yoga is a panacea, but I will contend that it is an excellent workout, especially if combined with a little aerobic exercise.Further, as pointed out by krait44, while I have high blood presuure (bad genes and stress?) Tai Chi and Yoga have been proven to be of benefit. And, while I happen to be a hot yoga advocate (you can stretch a lot better versus being in a cold environment) one of the benefits of yoga (and Tai Chi) is thatit can be done anywhere, by yourself, with little or no cost or needed equipment. Maybe it'snot for everyone, but truly it does have a place.james

I have no doubt that Lynn is "up for the job". In a real knife fight,where strength and power are not as relevent as speed and ability, Lynn might be able to take on all comers. I don't knowthe answer, each "solution" creates new problems, but to watchpeople continue to kick their opponent when in a true knife fight theywouldn't have a leg left, or they close and push and punch or actuallydo a takedown after their arms, legs, neck etc. has been cut to ribbons turns these fights into boxing/wrestling matches. Unfortunately,Lynn, or anyone slightly built is at a disadvantage at a Gathering, yet in reality, the slightly built person has an advantage using the knife.Perhaps in stick "grappling happens" although I wonder without a helmethow many takedowns there would, but a knife is fatal - you don't chargeand take cut after cut and keep kicking and continue to close. You're dead.

It is too bad good, subtle, deceptive and fast knife work cannot be rewarded.Instead, the opponent after they are supposedly dead or disabled continues or initiatesphysical harm through greater size or strength and is often is looked upon as the "winner". That is not reality. Change the rules?james